The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has in the case of Sudhi Sachdev Vs. M/s APPL Industries Ltd. held that the pendency of a case under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”) amounts to an admission of debt by the Corporate Debtor as against an Operational Creditor despite the criminal nature of the proceedings under Section 138/141 of the NI Act forming outside the scope of Section 8(2)(a) R/w Section 5(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”). This article seeks to critically examine the rationale behind this decision. Background Under the Code, Section 8 stipulates that before an application for the initiation of Corporate Insolvency resolution…

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar and Ors. Vs. Jayashree Jayant Salgaonkar and Ors.[1]authoritatively clarified the position of law in relation the position and rights of a nominee of holdings under various statutes and their bearing on the normal process of succession upon the death of the nominator in holding that owing to the fact that these statutes, namely, the Companies Act, 1956; Banking Regulations Act, 1946; Depositories Act, 1996; etc. are purposed to deal with commercial and regulatory aspects of their respective fields and cannot hamper the laws and rules of succession forming the part of personal laws of an individual as the…

The Parliament of India has passed the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 (herein after referred to as the “Act”) in its Monsoon Session in 2018. The Act represents the Government’s ambitious endeavour to buttress the multitudinous peril of economic offenders who cheat and defraud the country and its constituents only to seek haven outside of India, in an attempt to evade prosecution. The past is replete with instances of such offenders who have more or less successfully fled from justice under Indian laws subsequent to benefiting off of scams that have cost the country billions of dollars and have led to a sharp downfall in investor confidence in the country.…

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by its Order dated 10thAugust, 2018 in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd., has held that the provisions of moratorium stipulated under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“ Code”) would override anything inconsistent contained in any other enactment, including the Income Tax Act, 1961thereby upholding the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi to the same effect in 2017 which had been challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Moratorium Order Explained Under the Code, an order for moratorium is a legal authorization for the Corporate Debtor to postpone the determination of claims and their recovery that…